P A T I E N C E - Snyder needs to just 'butt out' and give Scot time to figure out who he needs in the FO, who he needs as the HC and what players fit what he thinks is a good system for this franchise - it's a mess & it will take time

"Awesome" is just a word. Nothing more. People should stop being so sensitive.
Hmmm... where have I heard that argument before?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The only people who are offended by the name are the people who want to be offended, and as they want to be offended, they will be offended no matter what anyone does.

Just say no ... to political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with being sensitive to anyone, it's a weapon. For people who preach tolerance, the politically correct crowd demonstrate none.

This is very often the case (but not always). As I get older, I get more and more fed up with the ultra-liberal people around me. That said, I really don't care if the Redskins name gets changed or not. It affects me very little, as my sense of self is not wrapped up in a sports team name, logo, or mascot.

I've mentioned before, we just went through this exact same thing up here at the University of North Dakota. People cried out on both sides of the Fighting Sioux argument. The nickname is gone, and it's amazing how the issue is now dead. There's not a single letter to the editor, etc. The people who do really care about keeping the Fighting Sioux name still call them the Sioux, still wear the logos, still sing "...And the home of the Sioux" during the National Anthem at home games. It's really not a big deal.

DaveD1420 wrote:"Awesome" is just a word. Nothing more. People should stop being so sensitive.Hmmm... where have I heard that argument before?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The only people who are offended by the name are the people who want to be offended, and as they want to be offended, they will be offended no matter what anyone does.

Just say no ... to political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with being sensitive to anyone, it's a weapon. For people who preach tolerance, the politically correct crowd demonstrate none.

This is very often the case (but not always). As I get older, I get more and more fed up with the ultra-liberal people around me. That said, I really don't care if the Redskins name gets changed or not. It affects me very little, as my sense of self is not wrapped up in a sports team name, logo, or mascot.

I've mentioned before, we just went through this exact same thing up here at the University of North Dakota. People cried out on both sides of the Fighting Sioux argument. The nickname is gone, and it's amazing how the issue is now dead. There's not a single letter to the editor, etc. The people who do really care about keeping the Fighting Sioux name still call them the Sioux, still wear the logos, still sing "...And the home of the Sioux" during the National Anthem at home games. It's really not a big deal.

For the record, political correctness is not an exclusively ultra liberal weapon. Political correctness is a dismissive term used by anyone in, or who self identifies with, a position of power, control or entitlement when their way of doing or thinking about something is called out (rightly or wrongly) for being insensitive, hurtful, outmoded or [fill in appropriate adjective] and they feel threatened. Not arguing that this "redskins is derogatory, change it!" movement is or isn't the politically correct crowd run amok (I keep going back and forth).

The bastardized screeching by the politically correct crowd has turned it into a weapon, to be sure. And it absolutely reeks of intolerance to any opposed to their viewpoint. Bear in mind, though that this tactic is a learned response to the failure of more reasonable methods of trying to alter the course of some actual/perceived slight only to be met with smug disdain. Political correctness, non-bastardized form, is about sensitivity, or at least sympathy, to view point that you necessarily don't share the same perspective on. But we're all too busy shouting at each other for that point to actually get made.

I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The only people who are offended by the name are the people who want to be offended, and as they want to be offended, they will be offended no matter what anyone does.

Just say no ... to political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with being sensitive to anyone, it's a weapon. For people who preach tolerance, the politically correct crowd demonstrate none.

I think this applies to the online magazines (Slate, others who love to simply pick up the mantle of any cause) who have decided that they won't even print the name of my team because of its obvious racism. I'm not sure it does to Suzan Harjo and her camp. If someone is offended, not for the sake of being offended, but actually offended (you do believe that someone can be offended, right? I ask because if you don't then this point is moot.) then it seems silly for someone who isn't offended to simply tell them they are being ridiculous for x y and z reason. I mean, being offended is an emotional not an intellectual response in the first place.

I don't think whether the name is offensive can be decided by the majority who thinks it isn't or the vocal minority (no matter small or large) that thinks it is. Some kind of reason and logic has to be brought to be bear to decide this question. As does the realization that not everyone is going to be happy with the result. I think that taking the history of the team's name, the way we fans used to and still do celebrate our team and it name, the way the term has been used throughout history outside of the context of our team, and quite frankly figuring out how Native Americans (as many and as broadly as possible) feel about the name and weighing all of that together is pretty much the only way this gets resolved. Anyone who has a problem with it after that is just SOL. I also think that that calculus results in the name staying. I understand why proponents don't want to bother with all of that and why detractors won't be satisfied until they get it, and probably not even afterward if it ends up with "Redskins" still sticking around, but I think its a worthwhile exercise anyway.

I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The only people who are offended by the name are the people who want to be offended, and as they want to be offended, they will be offended no matter what anyone does.

Just say no ... to political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with being sensitive to anyone, it's a weapon. For people who preach tolerance, the politically correct crowd demonstrate none.

I think this applies to the online magazines (Slate, others who love to simply pick up the mantle of any cause) who have decided that they won't even print the name of my team because of its obvious racism. I'm not sure it does to Suzan Harjo and her camp. If someone is offended, not for the sake of being offended, but actually offended (you do believe that someone can be offended, right? I ask because if you don't then this point is moot.) then it seems silly for someone who isn't offended to simply tell them they are being ridiculous for x y and z reason. I mean, being offended is an emotional not an intellectual response in the first place.

I don't think whether the name is offensive can be decided by the majority who thinks it isn't or the vocal minority (no matter small or large) that thinks it is. Some kind of reason and logic has to be brought to be bear to decide this question. As does the realization that not everyone is going to be happy with the result. I think that taking the history of the team's name, the way we fans used to and still do celebrate our team and it name, the way the term has been used throughout history outside of the context of our team, and quite frankly figuring out how Native Americans (as many and as broadly as possible) feel about the name and weighing all of that together is pretty much the only way this gets resolved. Anyone who has a problem with it after that is just SOL. I also think that that calculus results in the name staying. I understand why proponents don't want to bother with all of that and why detractors won't be satisfied until they get it, and probably not even afterward if it ends up with "Redskins" still sticking around, but I think its a worthwhile exercise anyway.

Well stated moses.

When someone can either name one person the name is intended to offend or one person who has a legitimate reason to be offended then we can talk. Haters gonna hate.

Some basic life rules:

Don't take offense when none is intended.

Don't apologize when you did nothing wrong.

Don't listen to the Washington Compost and Mike Wise, Sally Jenkins and the rest of the Narcissistic, self absorbed, agenda driven idiots who write for them.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way